[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi Jim,
 

El 15/7/19 2:16, "Jim Reid" <jim at rfc1035.com> escribió:

    
    
    > On 14 Jul 2019, at 22:54, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
    > 
    > I know that every region is different, but we live in a global Internet, and it is surprising to me that we are the only out of 5 RIRs, that has not done this already.
    
    Embrace diversity!

I'm fine with diversity, or course!

    
    "Because the other RIRs do it" isn't by itself a strong enough justification for the RIPE region to copy them.

My point here is that I disagree with not turning non-legacy into legacy. I think this is bad for the community. So as part of the diversity, my point of view is "divergent" with the actual policy, but is the same as the other 4 RIRs. I'm sure in RIPE we have people in one side, the other side, and the middle one.
    
    In this particular case, I am not convinced the proposal has any merit.
    
    Forcing legacy space to be subject to RIR policy on transfer is just wrong. The holders got that space before the RIRs existed. Which means it's grossly unfair and unreasonable to retroactively make that space subject to RIR policy, even when that space gets transferred. If the legacy holder chooses to do that, fine. However they cannot and must not be compelled to do so.

Here is where we disagree. I'm looking for what is best of the overall community, not the best of the legacy owners. I'm very honest here. It was just wrong we got legacy allocations, but it was no other way as the RIRs didn't existed. I think we can try to correct as much as possible past mistakes. Nobody is forcing the existing holders to do the transfers, they can just keep their resources and avoid that. I think is fair that destination holders are in-the-systems mandatorily.
    
    Such a policy may also be counter-productive since it (a) could discourage legacy holders from releasing unused space; (b) make such space unattractive to recipients because it would be subject to RIR policies, RIR fees might be payable, etc. (c) introduce uncertainty in the transfer market because donors and recipients get concerned that future transfers of legacy space could get singled out for yet more Bad Ideas.

I think it has been demonstrated by the stats of the last 2 years, that (a) is not the reality. (b) this is a community decision, and my personal view is that it should be that way. (c) this will not be retroactive: transfers already done with the exiting policy will not turn into non-legacy (unless they get transferred again).
    
    Let's assume your hypothetical proposal became policy Jordi. Would it apply to transfers of legacy space that took place before this policy came into effect? If no, why not? If yes, it would imply all RIR policies have to be retroactively be imposed on legacy holders.

I just responded to this (c) above. I'm not considering retroactivity. They will if they become transferred again.
    
    I think it's time to introduce a new policy proposal which brings about a moratorium on v4 address policy proposals.
    
    > I think this is a benefit for the global community, because ... increase the transparency and community control.
    
    Your comment about increased control is deeply troubling. Are you trying to turn the RIR system into the IP address police or the ITU? Do you want to bring about an investigation by the competition authorities? Be careful what you wish for -- you just might get it!

You know may answer already: not at all. I meant control by *this* community, by our policy system. Sorry if I was not clear.




**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.